I could name a few, Tbeek, but I'm sure you and I would disagree on what a positive effect would be. Preserving wildlife habitat and populations, I imagine, to you would be correcting a problem we caused, but to me, it would be balancing nature to the point that all could exist. Again, just a difference of opinion.

If preserving wild life habitat means 'leaving it alone' I'm with you, but if it means outside 'management' by USFS or some other entity I'm not. There aren't too many places left on the planet that haven't been messed with though. Give me an example iddee.

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

Pretty much yeah. Most if not all other life-forms would certainly be better off without us, except perhaps cockroaches, mice and rats, certain fungi :-\. They 'might' miss us when we're gone.

A world without humans may not be perfect (that depends completely on the observer), but 'better' for sure….at least for any remaining life and "if" we continue the direction (cliff) we can't resist heading toward...

"but 'better' for sure"....REALLY? Better for who? You, Me, our families? friends? or neighbors? Oh NO, wait, we're all humans, we're the problem, things would be "better" if we were not here. Seems like a pretty big price to pay for a "Better" world....but I'm sure all the deer, rabbits, and other little critters would appreciate it. :-D

It's just a different way of viewing things T Beek...I get the feeling that you think a tree is beautiful and a man cutting one down is "harming the environment".

I can appreciate the beauty of a tree, but think the house a man can build for his family with it, or boat, or musical instrument, or piece of furniture is equally beautiful.

I can appreciate the rock, but also appreciate the sculpture the artist creates from it.

I can appreciate the wildlife, but also appreciate the meal it can put on the table.

Let me offer an analogy...If the earth was a high dollar sports car...You would want to keep it in the garage, never crank the engine and keep it in pristine, mint perfect shape.I'd prefer to appreciate the true beauty of it and drive it all over. No doubt, my car might suffer some bumps and dings along the way, and show a little wear from the journey. At the end of the day...You could effectively argue that your car was in "better" shape than mine. I think I could effectively argue that you were missing the whole point of what a sports car is all about!

At the end of the day, you may be right, the Earth may be better off without humans....But I'd still ask, what's the point?

Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

As moots said, if you think any use of it is negative, we have totally different opinions of definitions, so could never agree. Using it and leaving it better than we found it is, imho, positive. If nature can feed 20 mouths on an acre and we make the same acre feed 50 mouths, I think we improved it.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

Really-you can't see the point? Someone is not looking then. A common theme on the COFFEE HOUSE. Try again; I did say the world would be 'better for any remaining life' without us. Kinda hard to deny that isn't it? Go ahead…try. What do WE offer this planet, besides worm food and pollution? Anything?

Humans are mostly TAKERS these days, we have a hard time giving anything back, especially to the Earth and much less to each other (our trash doesn't count). As a species we have forgotten how to return what has been taken. Most of us don't really give a d…….and would much rather go shopping :-\

What kind of future do YOU all imagine for future generations?? Any clean air, land or water fit to support life? REally?

Like many at 'this' place some of you 'assume' too know too much……..about me anyway :) I live in the forest so while I have great appreciation for trees I'm certainly not beyond cutting what I 'need' when I need them (I cut and burn wood for heat and built my own house using wood from our land), grown an enormous garden or harvesting tasty critters when the opportunity knocks………so many assumptions :( by this crew. Try getting out of your own heads once in a while…….Have I made improvements? For me and mine only, this place was pristine and untouched when we began over 30 years ago…..but eventually the Earth WILL reclaim it all……. 8-)

An acre of veggies, planted intensively should feed roughly 100 people their veggies for a year, but now we are talking about RELATIVES, no longer absolutes.

Is it/does it really qualify as an improvement when only WE benefit? Sorry but the example provided by iddee is weak. Otherwise….well you get the point :-D I'd like just ONE example where humans have left anything 'better than we found it" Just ONE!

As I stated earlier, your definition of better is different than mine. We would never agree.

""Try again; I did say the world would be 'better for any remaining life' without us.""

Well, you could do your small part there, you know.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

There you go again iddee, assuming that I don't do 'my own' small part…….You don't know me, you just 'think' you do. Face to face we'd likely get along just fine (we have more in common than not, you know………..)

Ummmm, I'm not necessarily seeking any 'agreement' just a 'broadening' of the topic, a deeper conversation if you will. Is that not allowed on this forum?

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

TBeek <An acre of veggies, planted intensively should feed roughly 100 people their veggies for a year, but now we are talking about RELATIVES, no longer absolutes.>

Hey TBeek, Although I admire (envious of) your set up, you're not serious about one acre feeding 100 people for a year are you? If so please explain. My garden size is between 1/3 to 1/2 acre. City folk would say it was one or two acres. My experience (with one spring planting) is much, much, different. (I use a tractor with the row method) I would have to double or triple my garden size to have enough to "maybe" get us (3 people) through until the next harvest. I expect you probably grow a lot of greens in the winter and that would buy some extra time.

I'm not being cute with you. Our goal is to be more self sufficient. By looking at what others do always gives us more ideas. thanks.

The Rodale's discovered/presented the equation (one acre planted intensively feeds 100) well over fifty years ago and has been widely documented.

Personally we practice 'no till' intensive planting (all raised beds) and our yields are always exceptional. Roughly half (probably more) of what we grow is donated to our local food shelf and can be in the thousands of pounds. We sell some at the Farmers Market (mostly garlic and honey), but not what we used to. Our pigs and chickens get quite a bit (giving back?) as does the compost pile. Yields are definitely improved when growing food this way, and the soil and its nutrients are preserved. We used to call it growing 'organically' until the FEDS got involved.

I'd estimate our root cellar and pantry stocks as being full enough to sustain us for a year or more this time of the year. There's not too many who can say that. We could probably take a year off from gardening and still eat well but its soooo much fun :) and serves best as therapy for my brain……..much like beekeeping.

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

Really-you can't see the point? Someone is not looking then. A common theme on the COFFEE HOUSE. Try again; I did say the world would be 'better for any remaining life' without us. Kinda hard to deny that isn't it? Go ahead…try. What do WE offer this planet, besides worm food and pollution? Anything?

Humans are mostly TAKERS these days, we have a hard time giving anything back, especially to the Earth and much less to each other (our trash doesn't count). As a species we have forgotten how to return what has been taken. Most of us don't really give a d…….and would much rather go shopping :-\

TBeek, as iddee pointed out, I think you're operating with a different set of definitions than we are, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

However, just curious...I don't want to "assume" anything. :-D But your statement above which I emphasized seems to imply a change from the past. Using your definitions, when would you say in history that humans EVER were giving more to the world then they were taking?

In fact, using your strict definition, I would think one could argue that a vast majority of species on earth are mostly "takers" and the world would be "better of" without them.

Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

Tbeek, you either missed or ignored my dirty, sadistic joke. When you said the world would be better off if we were not here, I replied you could do your small part. As long as you are typing, I know you haven't done your small part. ""You're still here"". :evil: :evil:

You're probably right We would probably get along fine. I'm still waiting for bluebee to drop in and see me. I also get along fine with tecumseh. >>>It's fun arguing, tho.<<<

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

When in history did humans ever give more than they received from the Earth? I don't mind answering, but I sure wish some of my own questions or perspectives were answered as well….

Worldwide I'd have to say as long as 10,000 years ago. In the Americas, perhaps as little as 500 years ago. For many tribal people it was and remains a spiritual act, giving back for the 7 generations to come, and never taking more than one needs. There are but a few pockets of humans who remain untouched and willfully reject the 'culture that kills' but we keep finding them, exploiting and stealing from them until we've either assimilated or killed them……. :'(

Examples of our exploits are unfortunately plentiful………we keep good records.

None of Earths creature can compare with the theft humans have conducted. Not even close. Placing our destructiveness along side with the rest of life (EXAMPLES PLEASE!! what is ever destroyed, except perhaps something we've built?….over their home?), it is a ridiculous argument, like comparing apples and arithmetic or rich and poor.

Agreed; respectful debate and discussion IS fun!

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

When in history did humans ever give more than they received from the Earth? I don't mind answering, but I sure wish some of my own questions or perspectives were answered as well….

Worldwide I'd have to say as long as 10,000 years ago. In the Americas, perhaps as little as 500 years ago. For many tribal people it was and remains a spiritual act, giving back for the 7 generations to come, and never taking more than one needs. There are but a few pockets of humans who remain untouched and willfully reject the 'culture that kills' but we keep finding them, exploiting and stealing from them until we've either assimilated or killed them……. :'(

Examples of our exploits are unfortunately plentiful………we keep good records.

None of Earths creature can compare with the theft humans have conducted. Not even close. Placing our destructiveness along side with the rest of life (EXAMPLES PLEASE!! what is ever destroyed, except perhaps something we've built?….over their home?), it is a ridiculous argument, like comparing apples and arithmetic or rich and poor.

Agreed; respectful debate and discussion IS fun!

**emphasis added

TBeek

"Never taking more than one needs"...While kinder and gentler, still doesn't seem to pass your stringent definition of a "positive" effect on the environment....NOW DOES IT?

Seems the goal post are moving... :?

Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

When in history did humans ever give more than they received from the Earth? I don't mind answering, but I sure wish some of my own questions or perspectives were answered as well….

Worldwide I'd have to say as long as 10,000 years ago. In the Americas, perhaps as little as 500 years ago. For many tribal people it was and remains a spiritual act, giving back for the 7 generations to come, and never taking more than one needs. There are but a few pockets of humans who remain untouched and willfully reject the 'culture that kills' but we keep finding them, exploiting and stealing from them until we've either assimilated or killed them……. :'(

Examples of our exploits are unfortunately plentiful………we keep good records.

None of Earths creature can compare with the theft humans have conducted. Not even close. Placing our destructiveness along side with the rest of life (EXAMPLES PLEASE!! what is ever destroyed, except perhaps something we've built?….over their home?), it is a ridiculous argument, like comparing apples and arithmetic or rich and poor.

Agreed; respectful debate and discussion IS fun!

**emphasis added

TBeek

"Never taking more than one needs"...While kinder and gentler, still doesn't seem to pass your stringent definition of a "positive" effect on the environment....NOW DOES IT?

Seems the goal post are moving... :?

Dude, I didn't know someone was keeping score :roll:

Now you're gonna tell me what my definition of a positive effect on our environment is or isn't? FYI; I have expressed very clearly what it looks like, please review the above comments that you're commenting on.

There was a time in history when humans did live in harmony with the natural world, eventually 'evolving' to the point where great respect toward our Mother was not only expected but was the norm. We passed that point long ago. The great disconnect is nearly complete. Your own words tell us so.

GSF; yep with rare exception we haven't had to till more than a handful of times in 30 years. We also practice the 'Ruth Stout method' of gardening without any supplements other than more organic matter each year. Grass hay covers our gardens year round. Our soil is ALIVE!! 8-)

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

Now you're gonna tell me what my definition of a positive effect on our environment is or isn't?...

I'm not trying to "tell" you anything T Beek! How could I, or anyone possibly do that...Obviously, YOU HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS! :)

Hope you have a GREAT DAY!However you might choose to define that, I certainly wouldn't want to offend you by offering an opinion. :-D

Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

Oh boy, there it is. I was wondering how long it would take for this thread to digress into……….I don't know, but certainly not a forum where other opinions are welcomed without 'disturbed' feelings by someone. Feels a lot like High School, doesn't it?.

Winning ain't everything…well not to me anyway. Not sure what is at stake, are you? Why so angry? Why so confrontational? Do you bother to read what you post before hitting the send?

I don't have all the answers, never claimed to. Do I try to offer 'another' perspective? Absolutely! This place would be even duller without other viewpoints, no?

I admit that I may have answers 'you' simply don't like or comprehend. That seems much more likely…….based on your rather aggressive responses to some pretty meaningful and deep discussion I've attempt to present. So it goes when trying to open other dimensions, some will always resist any kind of challenge to their particular version of normalcy. It is what it is, that,s all that is is.

Sorry to have bothered you Moots, it wasn't my intent. This place never changes :(

Ummm; did you offer an opinion or even try to address the ones presented? Or was it something else altogether? I choose the later.

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

so I don't do the quote thing to comply with someone control tendencies so that make me a techno dinosaur! really kind of revealing and funny at the same time.

and a snip just to irritate the ladies in the crowd...'Again, for you to include Global Warming in the same sentence with those two as a significant contributor to Louisiana's land loss problem is laughable and disingenuous. If Louisiana's land loss problems are being caused by global warming and rising sea levels, as you initial implied in this thread...Then why aren't Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida experiencing land loss at the same rate as Louisiana?'

tecumseh...laughable and disingenuous... I am failing to see how you came to this conclusion????? the constant and slow rise and fall in the sea level is well documented both currently and historically and is directly associated with the accumulation and melting of ice <why this very slow and persistent rise might effect some places and not others seems quite obvious to me < basic geology, elevation and soil type being just a few of the obvious variables < and as I at least suggested in a prior post most of these kinds of things go way beyond simple one source explanations.

it does seem that most here think that man does directly impact his environment... thankfully I don't need to remind folks of human history going back thru and beyond biblical times to make this point that 'this is exactly what man does'.... purposefully sometimes and quite by accident at other times. <why you might or might not expand this view to a bit larger scale is I would suspect may be a product of experience and upbringing.

another snip and once again just to irritate the ladies in the audience...I also get along fine with tecumseh. >>>It's fun arguing, tho.<<<

tecumseh...dang it iddee you were not suppose to say that! kind of lets the cat out of the bag... don't ya' think? beyond the aspect of it being fun I think it also exercises that muscle that lays between our ears and at least most of us old guys can certainly use a bit of that.

as for myself, I never expect to alter anyone's opinion based on something I said or wrote... this seems just a bit naive to me. as to opinion I always assume everyone has one, but for myself (most especially if I wish to do something that involves some significant expense or danger) I will take an informed/experienced opinion over the more common variety any day of the week. < and in this little paragraph I suspect is more of the real current human friction than I might ever wish to explain.